[ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis

[James Salsman]

Thank you for writing, Gary,

> your usage of the term ["Teratogenesis"? "Teratogens"?] in previous
> messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it.

What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity?

Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years
against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity?  When he finally
admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest
that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium
combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble.
 We saw how studies in 1952 and 1953 showed that a single acute dose
of a uranyl compound is a reproductive toxin.  I believe that you have
congratulated him in multiple messages up to his admission that he was
in the wrong.  Why would anyone approve of his position?

However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D.
(2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in
vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75–89.  It was
the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The
information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb.
Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity
specialist.  She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the
damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons
are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic.

> Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a
> teratogen is not very helpful to your cause.

What do you think my cause is?  Some say I am trying to attack the
offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve
their health.  I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond
with the health of the force.  Towards those ends, it is obvious to me
at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and
neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity.  Increasing the likelihood
of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to
recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military
to have weapons that work off the battlefield.  This is nothing new,
it's been against international law for almost 90 years.

Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue
than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity?

--- forwarded message ---
[ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much
teratogenesis
garyi at trinityphysics.com
Thu Jul 3 00:54:56 CEST 2008

Hi James, thought you had faded out.  Did you see a few days ago that
I too had a
pseudonym?  I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes.

You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and
you would technically be
right.  But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in
previous messages
reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it.
Several people have hinted to
you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to
your cause.  You would do
well to pay more attention to those messages.

However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free
to ignore me and stick
with that if you want.

-Gary Isenhower



On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote:

John Jacobus wrote:

> Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.

That is false.  Teratogens can cause heritable defects.

James Salsman